In a recent government meeting, officials addressed the contentious issue surrounding the removal of a billboard sign linked to the Gitchigami bike trail project. The discussion centered on an appeal from property owners who argued that the sign was not intentionally removed and should be allowed to be rebuilt.

Key points raised included the assertion that previous staff members had miscommunicated the status of the sign, leading to confusion about its removal. The Minnesota Supreme Court's case law was cited, emphasizing that errors made by former staff cannot prevent current officials from enforcing local regulations. The appeal also claimed that a legally binding agreement existed, which was refuted by officials who clarified that regulatory staff do not create contractual obligations.

Property owners, represented by attorney Adam Sharer, contended that the sign's removal was a misunderstanding and that it was meant to be temporarily relocated to facilitate the bike trail. They expressed frustration over what they perceived as a \"bait and switch\" regarding the sign's status, arguing that the removal was not in line with their understanding of the agreement made with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

Officials discussed the legal implications of the sign's removal, noting that the county's ordinances are designed to minimize signage along the Highway 61 corridor. The board acknowledged the complexity of the situation, with some members expressing sympathy for the property owners while also emphasizing the need to adhere to existing regulations.

The meeting concluded with officials indicating that the matter may require further legal review, as the property owners could potentially pursue court action if their appeal is denied. The ongoing debate highlights the challenges of balancing community development projects with regulatory compliance and property rights.